NY Times cruising for a court battle?
The Anchoress has an excellent roundup of posts about the recent publications by the NY Times of security leaks.
The Anchoress asks whether the Times "is trying to force a legal confrontation…are they actively trying to have members of the fourth estate brought up on charges of treason? To what purpose?"
I submit the following answer to the Anchoress's question: The Times is trying to relive its glory days. Don't forget that, as I described in this post, a lawsuit by the Nixon White House against the NY Times to stop the publication of Ellsberg's Pentagon Papers in 1971 was a seminal step in determining the freedom of the press to publish national security secrets. Although the security breaches involved in the publication of the Pentagon Papers were smaller than those involved today, the precedent is there. The Times was victorious, and the case set the stage for the publication of today's security leaks.
In that earlier post, I quoted from a book on the Court's decision in the Pentagon Papers case, written by David Rudenstine and entitled The Day the Presses Stopped. I'll quote the book again:
Despite Americans' constitutional right to a free press, certain government information--particularly that concerning military affairs--has been placed beyond the realm of public access. A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1971, however (brought about when the Nixon administration sued the New York Times) knocked a howitzer-sized hole in that theory when the case allowed the New York Times and the Washington Post to print excerpts from the Pentagon Papers, a 7,000- page document regarding U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
Why wouldn't the Times think that history will repeat itself? After all, it's been clear for a while that Vietnam is the liberal template for the Iraq war. The left is counting on it.
posted by neo-neocon @ 1:01 PM
27 comments
27 Comments:
One approach might be for the government to file a civil suit against the corporation, asking for damages in at least the amount that it cost to set up the monitoring program. I would think there would be plenty of precedents dealing with the divulgence of trade secrets.
The Times was careful to point out that they had around 20 unidentified sources contributing to the article. I'm sure they will argue that a secret so widely known, and to such unreliable people, was no longer secret at all. They are daring the Bush administration to come after them.
You know, appearing weak is not a way to defend yourself.
Bush doesn't seem to understand or approve of the concept "Peace through superior firepower". This includes domestic firepower in the form of lawyers, law suits, and sanctions.
Destroying the NYTimes is a good idea, through propaganda and disinformation. I favor it myself.
Give the exclusives to Fox News, to fill the gap. Marginalizing our enemies and promoting the power of our friends, is a good start. Giving O'Reilly that exclusive to gitMo, good idea. Not enough.
You should NOT have freaking opened GitMo to all the press, you should just have given O'Reilly the exclusive. This gives Fox News more leverage.
We'll see how many people say Fox News is Faux News when Fox News has 99% access to Administration policy, programs, and details while the New York Times has to scrap together some "anonymous sources" from the boondocks.
Connections are everything for journalists. Same for politicians, spies, and intel branches. Cut those connections off, and good things will happen. You don't need to prosecute anyone, though that helps, you just need to Make. Them. Wish. They'd. Never. Existed
The principals should be prosecuted for treason...as in aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war. If I'm not mistaken (and I rarely am) that is punishable by death.
What a message that would send, huh?
Terroists in the US can't even get the death penalty, I ain't betting on the lawyers and the "judges" to do anything about espionage and domestic traitors.
NYT share prices have plummeted in the last couple of years. Pinch has a bunch of irate investors breathing down his neck, and if he doesn't reverse the trend, even the Class B(?) shareholders might give him the heave-ho.
It is apparent that the originating post indicates a belief that the press should not be allowed to print matter that is critical of the Administration. That as a starting point is scarey enough, before we get to Y's contribution.
Y, just what are you sponsoring here -
Give the exclusives to Fox News, to fill the gap. Marginalizing our enemies and promoting the power of our friends, is a good start. Giving O'Reilly that exclusive to gitMo, good idea. Not enough.
...We'll see how many people say Fox News is Faux News when Fox News has 99% access to Administration policy, programs, and details while the New York Times has to scrap together some "anonymous sources" from the boondocks.
Is this suggesting that there should be only one "official government news source"?
Are you proposing that the government should in fact determine what news is published, and who publishes it?
Like this for example?
As Minister of Enlightenment, Goebbels had two main tasks:
- to ensure nobody in Germany could read or see anything that was hostile or damaging to the Nazi Party.
- to ensure that the views of the Nazis were put across in the most persuasive manner possible.
...
To ensure that everybody thought in the correct manner, Goebbels set up the Reich Chamber of Commerce in 1933. This organisation dealt with literature, art, music, radio, film, newspapers etc. To produce anything that was in these groups, you had to be a member of the Reich Chamber. The Nazi Party decided if you had the right credentials to be a member. Any person who was not admitted was not allowed to have any work published or performed. Disobedience brought with it severe punishments. As a result of this policy, Nazi Germany introduced a system of censorship. You could only read, see and hear what the Nazis wanted you to read, see and hear. In this way, if you believed what you were told, the Nazi leaders logically assumed that opposition to their rule would be very small and practiced only by those on the very extreme who would be easy to catch."
Neo, if you were going to draw a line between "free press" and total state control, just where might it be?
It is apparent that the originating post indicates a belief that the press should not be allowed to print matter that is critical of the Administration.
Probligo,
I did not get that from the post at all. The issue is not whether the press can publish information critical of an Administration, but whether they can publish information critical to National Security.
I am not going to defend Y's post or criticize it. Y can answer you in it. However, I think it's unfair to use it to then question Neo about a proposition she did not make.
There are several issues here that need to be addressed and have not been, either in the post or in comments.
This specific incident is interesting because even the NYT is not alleging that anything even remotely untoward or illegal occured. They simply felt people should know about a secret program. There appears to be no reason for revealing the program, and the NYT have said nothing to enumerate why they felt it was so important.
The Pentagon Papers case was about prior restraint- this case is not. The Supreme Court decision upheld the first amendment rights of the press to print whatever they chose- they may not be forced by the government to not print something- that would be prior restraint. The supreme court was also very clear that AFTER a paper printed something, they were fully liable to be prosecuted if they were found to have violated the law. Sound arguments can be made that the NYT did so in this case, as they revealed a secret program without any seeming need to 'whistle blow' and thus are under no whistle blower protections.
The role of the free press is to keep us informed- without violating the law, or endangering us or our national security. There is no carte blanche in the first amendment- read it. You can say whatever you like, but you are responsible for what you say. Libel, slander, endangerment, fraud, threat, and even treason, are all protected under the first amendment in that you can say any of those things, but you may still be held accountable under the law for saying something if it is found to be illegal.
I say prosecute the New York Times.
"It is apparent that the originating post indicates a belief that the press should not be allowed to print matter that is critical of the Administration."
The problem with that statement Probligo, is that it isn't about the administration. It's an unquestionably legal program, which the proper legislative branch members were briefed about, and which, at least from the NYT description of the program, was operating legally and effectively.
What exactly does it have to do with the administration?
Don't let your feelings about Bush cloud the issue.
Woohoo Sally! I like that and I like that idea of prosecuting the NYT even better.
The NYT might have a few more secrets that it's on the verge of printing. All they have to do is say they'll print if they're prosecuted. This makes it tougher to prosecute.
I am not a legal expert, but that seems like it would not only help a case against them regarding malicious leaks (rather than hiding behind some freedom of speech excuse), but it would add a blackmail charge to the lot.
Having said that, don't get me wrong; I don't think you are way off base. We've seen enough stupid and arrogant behavior by the MSM to make it seem plausible.
migl"The public's right to know". Well, "the right to" implies "the right not to". And I say that the NYT and its ilk are denying me my right not to know things whose secrecy is necessary to prosecute and win this war and to protect me. How can I convey to you the extreme mental anguish their irresponsible and dangerous conduct has caused me!
Neo, you refer to the NYT's nostalgia for their glory days. I remember them well.
How the MSM helped us lose a war, condemned thousands of Vietnamese and Cambodians--people who trusted our word-- to labor camps and worse, brought down a president, paralyized our military willpower for decades.
I have to ask this, but does anyone actually realize that a Democrat fan of Stalin called Roosevelt, engaged several anti-sedition acts as well as Hollywood propaganda machinations to cover up all criticism to his administration during WWII? You might want to check history first, before you start implying that the US is going the route of the Nazis. We've stared the Abyss eye to eye, and the Abyss has looked away.
Can't say the same for the BBC however.
The only extreme part I hear here is the extreme fear and irrationality that spreads as a miasma to limit effective action. You fear the Nazis, you fear the US, you fear the terroists, you fear censureship, you fear surveillaince programs, you fear Bush the gringo monkey man. Just what don't you people fear?
A system in which a news reporter or a news agency that has stringent integrity standards and ethics, is perfectly compatible with being given government access. A free press is not to hail themselves as kings and autocrats, a free press is to provide information to the public. This information can best be acquired through direct sources from the government. Otherwise the press is just another rumour mongler, like when they reported those miners as "alive", when if they waited 5 seconds, they would have gotten the realdeal. They were dead, and the rumour mongers strike again. Too many people believe the press has a right to spread rumours and get people killed. We call that murder in a civilized society.
I don't hear people that complain about Fox News, complaining about Clinton and how he used leaks and rewards to control the media. America is only dangerous when they think it is dangerous, it seems.
Others have described the principle behind human and individual rights here, so I'll go a different route, I'll go the route of application and enforcement.
I mentioned before O'Reilly's exclusive at GitMo. More of that, and faster.
The plan is simple. Every administration official, from all appointees down, are told to give any and all information to Fox News. Strip the press credentials from the NYTimes and other news agencies that do not have integrity or American interests at hearts.
Bush himself does it when he gives interviews to Fox. This is simply a broader spectrum initiative. When CNN gets an exclusive with Saddam and Fox gets an exclusive interview with Bush, do people automatically believe taht Fox and CNN are shilling for their respective interviewess? Only the proof that CNN witheld information would you believe that CNN was bought by Saddam via corrupt methods. But people don't automatically believe that just because one exclusive is present on one news, that this automatically means it is discredited.
By giving Fox News authoritative scoops and exclusives from the administration, a trust is formed between reporters at Fox News and administration officials. More information is thus, produced. The same principle exists in human affairs, you can't force people to give what they don't want to give you. You can get more productivity from people by giving them your trust and giving them their just rewards.
This will allow Fox News to dominate the news media, and setting a very high standard of integrity and trust, accuracy and balance. Every other news organization has to then become just as ethical as Fox, to get in on the pie, the information pie. Bush only has 2 years to do this, he has wasted a total of six years in the information campaign and he will probably waste more.
Prosecuting the NYTimes might feel good, but the courts are not effective. We all know why.
It's the economy stupid, or as I term it, it is human nature that dictates what people do or do not. Put pressure on their nature, and you will get results. The nature of journalists and reporters are sources and connections.
"However, I think it's unfair to use it to then question Neo about a proposition she did not make."
Sorry, there is an "attraction" there that I missed. But the point that Neo (and there are many others) is making is that there needs to be control on what the press is permitted to publish.
"The problem with that statement Probligo, is that it isn't about the administration. It's an unquestionably legal program, which the proper legislative branch members were briefed about, and which, at least from the NYT description of the program, was operating legally and effectively."
OK. So rewrite it so that it is correct. I am not a Constitutional law expert, or even American law beginner. I use shorthand sometimes. Does that change the import of what I was saying? It is not intended as an "anti-Bush" so much as "look at what you are all saying".
No, the press shouldn't be able to publish information that endangers soldiers and citizens during a time of war. The 'free press' has privileges that you and I do not have. That means they need to be more responsible. They're not.
So, what would happen if the "free press" were not allowed, permitted, to tell you that the North Koreans had invaded Alaska? Or perhaps that Federal Bank had reported the country was technically insolvent? Both, if true, would severely harm national security and national interests.
The best rationale that I can put to Y's "re-interpretation" is that he wants the press to be sycophantic servants of the administration and government.
There is nothing there that changes my original interpretation.
"But the point that Neo (and there are many others) is making is that there needs to be control on what the press is permitted to publish."
Yes, that would seem to be her, my, and many others' viewpoint. The press should not be able to give away vital national secrets to our enemies. They should also not be able to get away with libel or publish personal information with malicious intent.
The press, like everyone in a free and democratic society, has limits on their freedom when it begins to encroach on others. Endangering the lives of their fellow citizens or the National Security of their nation when there has been no wrongdoing is using their freedom without responsibility.
"So, what would happen if the "free press" were not allowed, permitted, to tell you that the North Koreans had invaded Alaska? Or perhaps that Federal Bank had reported the country was technically insolvent? Both, if true, would severely harm national security and national interests."
Tell you what, I'll answer this if you first tell me what would happen if the press could publish...
-The location and military plans of all our special forces around the globe.
-The launch codes for all nuclear missiles.
-The location and identities of all those in witness relocation programs.
-Your bank account number, your social security number (or foreign equivalent), your credit card numbers.
-That you were a pedophile.
...without any potential liability or reprocussions whatsoever.
Now, do you really want a press which is answerable to no one in any capacity? Or do you think the press has some obligation to show restraint, and restrain not forthcoming should be in some form accountable for their actions? Do you think maybe that an unchecked press might have a degree of power which could be abused? Have you ever heard of William Randolph Hearst?
There is nothing there that changes my original interpretation.
Well, I am sorry to say that your interpretation is still incorrect. Not sure what else to say except maybe read Neo's post again.
Weary G, the answer to your main question is in SW's post.
"...there are laws against the release of classified information. Break the law, pay the penalty. What could be clearer than that? "
That requires no changes to anything from the past. It does not require the establishment of a Ministry of Enlightenment, or Ministry of Information.
If you have a problem with what the NYT does, write them and tell them. Politely. Keep on writing them. Politely. Tell them specifically what you do not agree with, and why. Tell them coherently and logically, not with political cliches and tired old words. Make them think, rather than consign you to the bin of "right wing-nut".
I agree with the sentiment that if a law has been broken, then it should be enforced. If the law is unenforceable, then why is it there?
But to believe that blanket suppressions, pedantic interpretations and legal weasel words will solve the problem (IF there is a problem) is simplistic and simply bad in the extreme.
It seems probligo prefers to provide the NYTimes as a safe haven for leaking information, but prosecute the leakers. Well, how are we going to exactly find who leaked what without arresting, raiding, and confiscating the NYTimes documentation? Judith Miller didn't give up her source until she spent some time in jail, and was investigated.
So if people want to go with Probligo's contention that we can solve this problem with one hand tied behind our hands, with the one hand writing sweet lovable letters to the NYTimes, while Bush searches for the leaker with the other hand, then haha that's a nice way to champion doing nothing.
The NYTImes knows who said what. If it could be solved legally, it would have already been done so during the NSA wiretaps.
Probligo's views on American local politics, do not benefit from any extra-national perspective.
"...there are laws against the release of classified information. Break the law, pay the penalty. What could be clearer than that? "
That requires no changes to anything from the past. It does not require the establishment of a Ministry of Enlightenment, or Ministry of Information."
I have not made a call for a Ministry of any kind. Nor did Neo as I recall. If someone else did, I am not defending that.
I think most people here are suggesting SW's course of action you mention; prosecution for criminal behavior. The Times appears to have divulged classified information about a program which even they say is not illegal, but which is useful for thwarting their nation's enemies. Divulging classified information is illegal. So, I am not sure we are in disagreement here.
Okay, can we say we agree on two things:
1-The government, any government, should not be able to dictate to the media what it writes or broadcasts. That is antithetical to the concept of freedom of the press.
2-The press does not have carte blanche to print or broadcast anything without consideration for individual rights and national security. Just like any other entity, the media can be held liable for breaking the law when self-restraint and ethics fail.
Can we agree that these are basic and fair tenets to operate by?
I think Probligo is refering to my solution for Bush to restrict exclusives and access to the New York Times as being equivalent to a Ministry of Propaganda.
Which would mean anyone giving anyone else an exclusive, is using propaganda. Which is true, but not in the sense that Probligo used it as.
First, Bush should be pushing DoJ to prosecute -- but, like with illegal immigrants, Bush is NOT the "pushing to enforce laws" kind of Pres. that the Left claims he is (and claims to fear).
John Snow wrote that he had firm effort to stop publication, not "half-hearted". False. Any words less than using police force to enforce Sedition Acts laws is, like UN resolution (after resolution after...) half-hearted at best.
Second, buyers should start boycotting the products of the biggest 3 advertisers in the NYT. This would best be done in organization, perhaps from family survivors of terror victims, including war veterans, family, and 9/11 survivors.
Telling US secrets is helping the killers.
While Charles here is surprised down to his toes that there are people who believe Vietnam could have been a great humanitarian example, classical liberals and conservatives have known for decades that the Left still saw themselves as blameless, and indeed justified, in the carnage that their actions contributed to in vietnam.
Bush is NOT the "pushing to enforce laws" kind of Pres. that the Left claims he is (and claims to fear).
We need a tyrant, a dictator, a man of steel. Like Roosevelt in WWII, and Teddy Roosevelt the war monger. They would have had zero trouble saying "Oh those terroists we captured, 4 years of interrogation? Execute them, their buddies killed 2 of our own"
Those Mexican military units on the border? Smoke one of them with a Predator missile when they cross our territory and make sure everyone sees where their bodies are planted, on our side rather than theirs. Roosevelt, a cold man that was going to kill all of ya with his mega war. He was a great example of ruthless Democrat war mongering.
Charlemagne, you've got some reading to do:
Start with this list.
Google Mark Lane, Al Hubbard, Steve Pitkin.
Go here for lots of info and FBI files on the VVAW.
After that, see if you still believe everything you've been told about Viet Nam.
Oh, and Neo's posted on it before as well- check the sidebar for the "A Mind is a Difficult Thing to Change" series- part IV in particular.
A mind is a hard thing to change Doug, what's the chances that the subtle lack of psychological shock from reading what he expects from the "neo-cons", is going to produce enough psychologically unbalancing stimuli in his self-identity matrix that Charles will change his mind?
I tend to believe people change their minds when their minds are psychologically shocked out of their normal pattern, like with 9/11. That provides the impetus, along with personality traits of integrity and self-honesty.
Post a Comment
<< Home